Last week, for having expressed myself musically via the Internet, I was entertained at Her Majesty’s pleasure during 48 hours.

Clearly at the beck and call of my predatory stalkers, police first arrested me for an alleged breach of bail outside Court 8 at Westminster Mags then, ten minutes later, de-arrested me. Within half an hour, I was re-arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred for my songs (again), handcuffed and carted off to Charing Cross police station where I was held for six hours to await two officers from Derbyshire police to take me back to my home county for questioning.

In Buxton, I spent another 31 hours in custody, was interviewed, rearrested for breaching bail and for another count of sending a ‘grossly offensive message’ – i.e. posting another humorous song on YouTube, clearly marked as SATIRE and which contains NO HATE SPEECH whatsoever – and finally charged with the latter two offences. I was told that the incitement charge is pending police investigation. I was refused bail and informed that police had requested I be held on remand.

On the morning of October 6th, I was again handcuffed and driven in a prison bus to Chesterfield Immediate Remand Court where I pleaded not guilty to malicious communications and was freed under the same bail conditions with the new charge transferred to the next legal argument hearing at Westminster on October 25th.

Now, three days after being released and of course being the subject of all-too-predictable arrogant gloating online from my predatory stalkers (yet total silence from the mainstream press), my impression is that my persecutors were trying to break me.

I was treated badly at Charing Cross, made to suffer three hours of torture in a freezing cold police van with no seat and refused a number of my rights. I have compiled a fully detailed report which has been sent to my lawyers.

All for singing satirical songs? What has happened to this country, when the authorities behave in such a despicable manner towards an artist who has never caused any harm to anyone? What do my predatory stalkers hope to achieve?

Anyway, I am absolutely fine. As I have said before, this kind of persecution only strengthens my resolve. Thanks to everyone who has sent me kind words of support.

The Crown now must convince District Judge Zani that ridiculing Jewish lies, power and influence in a song is grossly offensive. Other points of law to be discussed at the next hearing are whether sharing a URL constitutes sending or causing to be sent a grossly offensive message and deciding whether YouTube is a public communications network.

My bail terms specify that anything I post has to be BOTH racist/anti-Semitic AND grossly offensive in order for me to be charged with a breach. Certainly, one of the interviewing officers didn’t seem to be offended at all – one foot tapping the beat during the showing of a police screencapture video of my alleged musical crimes!

If my trial goes ahead, all the footage of the three songs concerned will be shown in court – the third clip clearly showing a YouTube warning notice for delicate flowers who might be offended by watching! If the authorities want to make themselves look utterly ridiculous then I can’t really see any problem. Likewise, if they decide to put an artist on trial for singing satirical songs, find me guilty and send me to prison, I have absolutely no problem with that either.

Once again, my predatory stalkers have omitted to include another of my songs which, considering the definition of what they claim to be ‘grossly offensive’, could easily have been subject to similar nonsense charges. I wonder why?

Rendezvous 10am, October 25th, Westminster Mags for a case that risks making legal history.

That is quite the ordeal you have been through. One of your more silver-tongued stalkers gleefully hopes that by winning the case a precedent will be set in case law that will make it easier to prosecute other “miscreants.” Yet not a word about this from luminaries such as Peter Hitchins, who normally makes such a fuss about attacks on Britain’s ancient liberties, in this case in furtherance of the narrow interests of a wealthy, influential and determined segment of the population whose interests are usually at variance with everyone else’s.

Alison you are making at least 3 SERIOUS MISTAKES : 1.) You are NOT demanding COMMON LAW Jurisdiction but you SHOULD and NO BAR Solicitor will help you properly so PRESENT yourself. Do NOT say you are REPRESENTING yourself, you PRESENT yourself and Demand ( Politely) COMMON LAW JURISDICTION 2.) DO NOT under any circumstances offer a PLEA of any kind, except in and if they provide you with a COMMON LAW Jurisdiction court date and court for your attendance.Simply and POLITELY state “I do not consent” when the judge asks for Plea from you.

The Judge may go into a TIRADE, because he is not used to HUMANS standing up for their Common Law RIGHTS and then blabber on about consequences, trying to scare you and end with this question: ” Do you Understand” . UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you say “YES” THAT is a LEGALESE question not an English question and means do you STAND UNDER HIM ( or HER) or translated simply, it means- do you AGREE with his AUTHORITY over you. YOUR ANSWER should be “NO I do NOT (recognize your Statutory Authority over me nor do I represent that CORPORATE ENTITY using my name, which you have before you)

WHY is COMMON LAW Jurisdiction so important?

The MOST important reason is that a HUMAN Victim of what they are are charging you with is NECESSARY and they will not be able to produce one, because there isn’t one and your case will of necessity, need to be DISMISSED.

Now Alison I have simplified this advice but here is a link to the FULL procedures and explanations, IF you have time to study it. IF you can find a Solicitor to help you ,all the better. However I doubt you can in this day and age of AUTHORITARIANISM

I forgot to mention,Alison, that since you may have already entered a Plea ( Mistake) you must withdraw you plea based on ” NOT being provided with FULL DISCLOSURE”

This is a common trick with Courts and other Government procedures.They DO NOT PROVIDE you with FULL DISCLOSURE, making any agreement you sign”, NULL and VOID. but of course, they don’t tell you that TRUTH

From now on NEVER sign a Government document without PRINTING ABOVE your Signature “Without Prejudice” which protects your Common Law rights, should they not provide FULL DISCLOSURE and they never do ,of course..

Wow, Freespirit! What you have said in your two posts makes instant sense. Quite clearly even to the lay person, there is a silly shenanigins going on when Alison can be privately prosecuted and slapped with stringent bail conditions (by the judge who has had to recuse herself!) that have left her open to severe police harassment on malicious allegations of breach of bail conditions, and once her case is moved to public prosecution, the new judge sees fit to tighten her bail conditions. Why is the court feeling free to victimise Alison?

And after all this time, is it clear on what provision of the law Alison is being charged? I.e., is it a Public Order Act or an Article 17 ECHR, or some other, charge? Or have the DPP and the CAA not yet decided?

And is the court’s treatment of Alison prejudiced by what looks to the lay person remarkably like an unprecedented collusion between the DPP and a non-CPS body, in this case the CAA? That is:

are reliable, then the DPP has agreed, persuant to the HighCourt Judicial Review Order to which she is signatory alongside the CAA, that she will consult the CAA when deciding to prosecute on an allegation that has to do with antisemitism. (That HighCourt Judicial Review Order is not published anywhere, and I have not been able to obtain a copy of its text from the CPS. Why? How is it that this quite astonishing innovation introduced into the DPP’s prosecution procedure can be kept secret from the public?)

And as Freespirit alerts: Where is Alison’s victim? Is she ever going to find out whom she is alleged to have vicitimised? Can she be charged at all in the absence of a vicitm? And if she can be charged, then with what — remembering that ‘hate speech’ in the abstract is not a charge that can rest on any law in the England and Wales jurisdiction?

Reciting the Qu’ran whilst in detention puts the wind up plod. The Old Bill are using taxpayers money on a case which will have the opposite outcome that the CAA wish, free speech will be ended and anyone who is antisemitic can point to your trial and say “double standards”.

Sending you much love and encouragement Alison! Indeed, the more they try to beat us down, the greater our resolve! By their ridiculous actions, they keep on revealing their panic and fear of the truth.

Premise 1: Jews are a downtrodden, underrepresented minority who do not run the news media in White nations.

Fact 1: In a newsworthy incident that demonstrates how the ‘justice’ system is biased against White people, White singer / songwriter / musician Alison Chabloz was arrested, handcuffed, and detained for 48 hours in Britain, ostensibly a White nation, for singing a song that mocks a Jew who claims to have swallowed and excreted diamonds hundreds of times.

Fact 2: The incident was reported in the Jewish press (Britain’s Jewish News Online), but didn’t get a mention in the ostensibly White newspapers of all political persuasions such as the Daily Mail or The Guardian.

Premise 2: If the British news media represented the interests of White people who are still the majority in the nation until 2066 or somewhat earlier, then it would have reported the arrest of Alison Chabloz. If however it serves the interests of Jews, then Fact 2 would be true, so that the press could foment anti-White hate amongst Jews (as seen in the comments) whilst denying Ms. Chabloz the support of her own people.

Conclusion 1 from Fact 1, Fact 2 and Premise 2: The British news media is run and controlled by Jews, and serves the interests of Jews.

Beyond belief Alison I’m sorry you had to endure that unnecessary ordeal.
I think if your case is being used by these snakes as a precedent? Then as a nation we need to show solidarity and expose the judiciary as the cesspool it obviously has become, why would you submit to criminal endeavours.
Try and keep strong and cheerful your an inspiration to all free thinkers, the truth will breakout one day and these snakes won’t have anywhere to hide.
Just as an aside, they have knocked me unconscious earlier this year in January and broke into my home 2 months ago, last night they let interfered with my car, and have been blocking my phone intermittently for months, apparently they don’t like facts but you know this already.
Thinking of you
frspch

Will they arrest anyone with an OLD Testament? That is the root source of all racism, homophobia, war crime, hate and bigotry in general.
Everything they claim the nazis did is an EXACT COPY of their own self-recorded acts/history..
Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16 “And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them…thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.”

The Muslims copied all of these same things in the Qur’an. In fact, many (including even some Jews) consider Islam to be merely a sect of Judaism (combined with a large dose of Arab paganism), as they copied so very much from the Hebrews. Nevertheless, in fairness, it must be acknowledged that the Jewish people lost their ability to enforce these laws, when they lost their statehood.

Alison
When I first exposed CERTAIN treasonous Jewish criminality back in 2012, I had assumed that the Human Rights Act would support my human right to my freedom of speech, but I very soon realised that things don’t work that way!

Anyway, from a legal point of view, I am led to believe that you’re first alleged “ant-Semitic” “crime” was conducted before the “Brexit” vote, so therefore I believe that you still have a human right to defend yourself under the jurisdiction of “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.

In the meantime, I will test my “human right” to my “freedom of speech” by pretending* to be an anti-gentile by quoting a few things that CERTAIN jewish people have quoted in the past of their opinions of gentiles:

Quotes by Jewish people that I agree with*

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel…Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat…Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. ”
—Ovadia Yosef, Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, 2010.[5]

“ When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionaly parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. ”
—Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, 1896.

“ There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults. ”
—Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, The King’s Torah, 2009.[6]

“ The Bolshevik Revolution and some of its aftermath represented, from one perspective, Jewish revenge. During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that—as 1930s anti-Semites claimed—Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. In time Jews will learn to take pride in the record of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back. ”
—Norman Cantor, The Jewish Experience, 1996.[7]

“ Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews? ”
—Manny Friedman, Times of Israel, 2012.[8]

Can you reach out to Gilad Atzmon for support? Also I think the Neturei Karta would also provide evidence in support of your work not promoting racial hatred and you could alsdo possibly reach out to them too.

Those with eyes to see and a desire for rationality over emotionalism are witnessing a ridiculous persecution. Whom are you offending? Jews? Jewish interests? Jewish authority? I’m offended by lots of things: banal television programming, the promotion of an aggressive LGBQT movement, the disproportionate overrepresentation of Jewish people in positions of perceptional influence.. but I do not seek the prosecution of either Bradley Walsh, the ‘writers’ of ‘Hollyoaks’, or of people who choose to lead their lives as they so wish!

One side of my family are university trained and are not only afraid of upsetting anyone for fear of being labelled, but are active in the lower echelons of one of the main political parties. We’re self-censoring ourselves into submission, and when there are millions of people for whom emotion trumps logic, your prosecution can only take part in a ‘society’ that believes from the top that Jews are beyond criticism, with an ever increasing number serving as secret informers within our own supposed ranks.

You’re doing brilliantly! As Corporal Jones remarked: ‘They don’t like it up em!’.

((((Alison!)))) I am so sorry you had to endure this very shabby treatment from the police. (But I love the foot-tapping one.) Thank goodness you are the strong, dignified, resolute lady you are.

And you know, I think you have chocked up a major victory here: The section of the police force that detained you has betrayed that it has realised that it cannot adopt the definition of antisemitism so sweetly constructed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and even more sweetly ‘adopted’ by Theresa May et al. They had to let you go! So prominent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC is proved right when he warned that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights scotches the IHRA definition, for Article 10:

‘… does not permit the prohibition or sanctioning of speech unless it can be seen as a direct or indirect call for or justification of violence, hatred or intolerance. The fact that speech is offensive to particular group is not, of itself, a proper ground for prohibition or sanction. The IHRA Definition should not be adopted without careful additional guidance on these issues.’

Still, that the police moved against you at all is disgraceful. Really disgraceful. (Nobody is in doubt about who talked them into doing this.) Surely they cannot try this on you again. I hope your legal people have made the due protests and cautionings to the police.

Never mind the Torah – it’s 3,000 years old and there are no Jews left/alive today. Only kazhars.
Plod should take a look at their book which those people live by – the Talmud. It’s full of disgusting and serious injustice.

Well, ok let me spell it out; the actual animal skin it’s written out on is not 3000 years old but the history it describes certainly starts at around 1000 BC and possibly earlier and before anyone says it’s full of myth and rubbish let me tell you that no one has ever proven it so and further, no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. We’ve had a thousand and more years of people trying to disprove the Bible but they have all in the end failed to do so. Get over it.

Satire is dangerous and risks severe sanctions. History is replete with examples of satirists who have come to a sticky end. Those it targets have their pomposity pricked, their vanity wounded, their cover blown. In your case, you have chosen to target the most pompous, the most vain, the most devious people of them all. You know, the ones who are snivelling and crying their way to the throne. Who have, by stealth and calculated outrage, won the gullible to their cause. Well, it’s only natural. The instinct of the British is to rally to the defence of the downtrodden, and who could be more downtrodden than history’s eternal victims? That is why these audacious manipulators will keep their manufactured history of victimhood front and centre, which they, their story being well-known, not least because it is shoved down our throats all the time, will have no difficulty doing.

Rather deflect this to why satire is necessary and what it accomplishes: a breaking of the culture-trance and a return to reason. Or at least a sense of proportion. The moralising Mafia will do all they can to prevent this, of course, but a reminder that their resistance is backed by phoney outrage combined with moneyed interests might take the sting out of it. Take phoney outrage: one of your detractors argues that your songs wound Holocaust survivors. Are we really to believe that your singing reaches the ears of gaga nonagenarians laid up in Tel Aviv rest homes? It’s all a ruse.

Satire arises from a felt necessity by ordinary people to throw off an imposition. Impossible culture-heroes like Jesus are held up to us and that is why we say “Christ” when we stub our toes. Holocaust shrines erected everywhere and an unwanted weight of unearned guilt thrust on the shoulders of people born long after events of 70 years ago is bound to ignite a normal, healthy resistance. Your bravery makes you an early forerunner but there will be others. It is time.

((((Alison!)))) I am so sorry you had to endure this very shabby treatment from the police. (But I love the foot-tapping one.) Thank goodness you are the strong, dignified, resolute lady you are.
And you know, I think you have chocked up a major victory here: The section of the police force that detained you has betrayed that it has realised that it cannot adopt the definition of antisemitism so sweetly constructed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and even more sweetly ‘adopted’ by Theresa May et al. THE POLICE HAD TO LET YOU GO WITHOUT CHARGE! So prominent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC is proved right when he warned that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights scotches the IHRA definition of what constitutes criminal antisemitism, because Article 10:
‘… does not permit the prohibition or sanctioning of speech unless it can be seen as a direct or indirect call for or justification of violence, hatred or intolerance. The fact that speech is offensive to particular group is not, of itself, a proper ground for prohibition or sanction. The IHRA Definition should not be adopted without careful additional guidance on these issues.’
Still, that the police moved against you at all is disgraceful. Really disgraceful. (Nobody is in doubt about who talked them into doing this.) Surely they cannot try this on you again. I hope your legal people have made the due protests to the police.
Sending you masses of love, Alison, and oodles of admiration.

The official legally-sanctioned Holocaust narrative is structured on what you can read in the Babylonia and Jerusalem TALMUD and TANACH.

The problem is that there simply is no proof of the defamatory allegation that Germans killed anyone in homicidal gas chambers.

Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the 20th Century clarifies the deception by pointing out this hoax relies on two interpretations of single events.

The gassing nonsense is legally protected and anyone who questions it is labelled a Holocaust denier.

Now that the survivors are fading rapidly from the scene this protective barrier lessens the Holocaust narrative’s strength and so it is important for its survival to ride on the back of ANTISEMITISM, which easily rides on the back of RACISM.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Item 2, of Article 10 – Freedom of expression

(The jewish criminality escape clause!)

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So in other words, “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights” has very similar qualities to that of a chocolate fireguard and of any “snake oil salesman” that entices his customers to visit his car show room because he had advertised that he could sell a car at half price that ….”just so happens” to be…. out of stock!

FYI, the European Convention on Human Rights [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights] (drafted in 1950) is incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998].

It is up for ‘adoption’ by agencies instead. (So kind, are they not?) But Hugh Tomlinson QC has warned very plainly against its ‘adoption’ by agencies such as the police force, because Article 10 of the European Human Rights Law defeats it. Here is Tomlinsin’s argument:

My guess is that Alison was harassed by the police in this instance because the section of the force that did it was talked into it, probably by the CAA. Poor Alison had a hard time. But the outcome is excellent: the IHRA definition is proved toothless. It will remain toothless even if we do a sudden hard Brexit (sweet dreams), simply because it is not law.

I’m sorry, but I read this post only recently. Since then, I have grown angrier by the minute. Imagine the huge furore if this were to happen to a woman of colour of the most humble standing:

‘I was re-arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred for my songs (again), handcuffed and carted off to Charing Cross police station where I was held for six hours to await two officers from Derbyshire police to take me back to my home county for questioning.
In Buxton, I spent another 31 hours in custody, was interviewed, rearrested for breaching bail and for another count of sending a ‘grossly offensive message’ …
On the morning of October 6th, I was again handcuffed and driven in a prison bus to Chesterfield Immediate Remand Court where I pleaded not guilty to malicious communications and was freed under the same bail conditions …
I was treated badly at Charing Cross, made to suffer three hours of torture in a freezing cold police van with no seat and refused a number of my rights.’

But it happened to Alison, a well bred white woman of good standing. So not only no furore, but nothing at all. Hang it! This is not just police harassment but also police brutality! And the police are subjecting Alison to this treatment on the instigation of an unscrupulous pressure group. (This conclusion is unavoidable in the absence of any reason to believe that the Police Department has any sort of grudge against Alison.)

We should confront the police with precisely this allegation!

Please, if an established member of the London Forum is reading this thread, alert Jez or someone to the need to (i) organise a letter of protest to the Commissioner of Police, and (ii) get together a goodly gathering of people to accompany the deliverer of that letter to the Commissioner.

Come on! Alison cannot be left to face an arrest, and the gross personal discomfort that goes with it, whenever a segment of the ‘chosen’ gets narky.

Thank you, Sophie. Appropriate action against both forces is certainly on the cards depending on the outcome of my case.

As for Jez Turner and the London Forum, Jez was finally charged, also last week, with incitement for his 2015 anti-Shomrim Whitehall speech. Same complainant as in my own case. Preliminary hearing also at Westminster Mags, 1.30 pm, October 30. They must like us there!

I’m so very sorry to learn of Jez’s situation. He is an impressively resourceful, very bright and exceptionally charming man. No wonder ‘they’ would rather he were not a nationalist. Curious how they have singled out you and Jez: two dangerously talented, charismatic people! I have listened to the youtube account of Jez’s Whitehall anti-Shomrim protest. I shall watch it again. But I do not recall incitement in it; only protest. And surely the two cannot be twisted to equate.

Thank you for the hearing date. I badly want to be there to swell the surporters’ number. Although I suppose they think it better tactics to keep postponing a hearing. I intend to be at your Oct. 25th hearing too.

It’s good to hear that ‘action against both forces’ is ‘on the cards’. Still, a protest from a significant crowd of friends to decry their ad hoc clappings of you into irons (and the rest) would inhibit this police outrage. I’m sure these things happen only when publicity is not feared. And the Commissioner’s attention ought to be provoked by letter.

Anyway, lots of love and every best wish to you and Jez. (I know you will both come out tops: No other possibility stands to reason.)